On Fri Mar 26 21:47, Eric Lavarde wrote: > OK, I'm not exactly enthusiastic, but I can live with this, as long as > the wording of the policy is adapted accordingly. > > Why I'm not enthusiastic: should I manage to get into Debian yet another > Java runtime, which is not compatible with either gcj, nor with openjdk, > then the result could be that quite a lot of packages wouldn't be policy > compliant anymore, because they wouldn't work with "all" JRE anymore. I personally view adding more JREs as a bad plan. I believe we should be aiming to reduce their number, ideally to one (at least, to one that behaves as /usr/bin/java and that packages depend on; or - one that is _supported_ as /usr/bin/java). After all, despite multiple python interpreters, only one of them is supported as /usr/bin/python. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature